question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME

[marbles]

"Going to war with Iraq is similar to giving HDPM the death penalty on suspicion (without proof) of owning illegal hand grenades."

Close, but no cigar... It would be more like bombing the country that was suspected of producing the aforementioned hand grenades, provided they're a country we didn't like much in the first place. [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[adios]

"I might have given a serious response, but since all the pro-war guys jumped in"

Blatent manipulation. Apparently Annan, Blix, France and Germany fit your definition of pro-war too given their support of UN Resolution of 441. Just for the record I don't prefer war, I much prefer Iraq's voluntary disarmerment.

An encouraging headline:

Blix Says Iraq Signals New Cooperation

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...un_iraq_blix_1

It's encouraging until you actually read the article to find such paragraphs as:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Blix said one letter from Iraq informed inspectors that "they have found an R-400 bomb containing liquid in a site which is known to us at which they did dispose of biological weapons before."


He gave no details, but R-400 aerial bombs can be filled with biological agents. Among the outstanding issues which Iraq has not answered is providing documentation about the filling of R-400 bombs with aflotoxin.


"There is another letter that tells us they have found some handwritten documents concerning the act of disposal of prohibited items in 1991," Blix said. "Now all these have to be followed up, but these are new elements."

------------------------------------------------------------

and this

------------------------------------------------------------
Blix said he has received no reply from the Iraqi government to his order to start destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles, their engines and components by Saturday for exceeding the 93-mile limit in U.N. resolutions.


Iraq says the missiles don't exceed the limit and has asked for technical talks.


But when Blix was asked whether the issue was open for debate, he said, "not between us and Iraq."

__________________________________________________ _______

It's clear the Iraq doesn't want to comply with UN Resolution 441 and any compliance that is forthcoming has been through overt threat of military action. So far Iraq is refusing to comply with the Blix directive to dismantle the missles. What good is passing a resolution if you don't enforce it? I don't know why those who oppose Bush policy hate the UN and it's processes so much.

[Clarkmeister]

"Blatent manipulation"


Manipulation of what, exactly? I came to the thread prepared to discuss the issue with an apparently objective undecided poster and before I can respond there are 2 long sarcastic antagonistic responses from yourself and Bman intended, apparently, to prevent that discussion.

"I don't know why those who oppose Bush policy hate the UN and it's processes so much."

I simply refuse to debate the issue with people who can't resist throwing in ridiculous statements like this.

[marbles]

"I came to the thread prepared to discuss the issue with an apparently objective undecided poster"

--Yeah, let's try to get back to that... The question remains: Can a bad dude fail to disarm after the world demands it, and still not face an attack? And if not an attack, what consequences are appropriate?

I really think that this is what it all boils down to after you cast aside the rhetoric from both sides. There may or may not be a creative solution, but it seems like the extremists from both the left and right would rather degrade each other than try to figure it out.

Any fellow moderates care to help me here?

[adios]

My post wasn't intended to be a flame. It's a legitimate laundry list of the reason I've read and heard. I'll address my friend Ray's post later but I don't think Bush has done a very convincing job about threat of Iraq to the American public. As to the laundry list, let's take number 1) Israel is in violation of UN Resolutions. If countries want the UN to address this issue as well as the issue of Iraq disarmerment perhaps some sort of "linkage" needs to be proposed by those countries that feel that way. Perhaps the UN process is flawed in such a way that it can't be effective. However, to ignore the process and put one's head in the sand regarding the UN resolutions that apply seems to be a total repudiation of the UN itself. If that's the case then those who oppose military action to enforce the UN resolutions need to either come up with an alternative or state that the UN was wrong in passing the resolution in the first place. What I'm seeing is that there are many that simply have an agenda to trash the republicans and Bush. I have literally read nothing from those who are vocal in their denunciation of the USA in this matter say that UN Resolution 441 is wrong and/or the UN is worthless organization and/or Annan and Blix are wrong in their efforts. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal today about why Germany is so opposed to military action. It's well worth reading IMO. Very sad when you realize the horrors of war that have been endured and inflicted by and on mankind. Germany has basically taken a pacifist stand against military action and as I've stated before I respect this stand. I think the UN offers the best hope for world peace and freedom for mankind. It's certainly not a perfect organization but it can be a damned inconvienience to blatent political agendas (a good thing). The trouble with the UN IMO is that there is lack of leadership and too many political agendas being promoted by it's members, USA included. And for those who question the wisdom of the American people during this whole crises, polls have consistently showed that Americans want UN Security Council approval before undertaking military action against Iraq. We'll see how it unfolds but the UN as an effective organization is in jeopardy IMO.

[adios]

I guess I'm an extremist. However, I think it's fair to say that Blix and Annan are not USA puppets. Far from it IMO and that's a good thing.

[marbles]

"My post wasn't intended to be a flame. It's a legitimate laundry list of the reason I've read and heard."

--Fair enough. And FWIW, I've heard all of the points on your list as well, and most of them annoy me, too (particularly the bit about stealing the election).

"We'll see how it unfolds but the UN as an effective organization is in jeopardy IMO."
--Now that's an important point. Bush is really exposing a tragic leadership flaw through this whole thing by letting it become a pissin' match between him and the UN. You mention the leaders pushing their own agendas, but is any leader pushing his agenda harder than ours?

[marbles]

"I guess I'm an extremist. However, I think it's fair to say that Blix and Annan are not USA puppets. Far from it IMO and that's a good thing."

--I don't think you're an extremist, but you have to admit your first couple of posts on this string looked a lot like some of the right-wing intolerance that's been polluting the board lately. As for Annan and Blix, I agree on both counts.

[adios]

"You mention the leaders pushing their own agendas, but is any leader pushing his agenda harder than ours?"

I agree. I was predisposed to the notion that Blix wouldn't be very effective. From seeing Blix in action I'm thinking that he is doing a good job and I was wrong. Statements from Blix like this have led me to that belief:

"Blix said he has received no reply from the Iraqi government to his order to start destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles, their engines and components by Saturday for exceeding the 93-mile limit in U.N. resolutions.


Iraq says the missiles don't exceed the limit and has asked for technical talks.


But when Blix was asked whether the issue was open for debate, he said, "not between us and Iraq."

I don't agree totally with the way Blix is going about things (that's probably a good thing) but Blix has demonstrated that he wants compliance with UN Resolution 441 in no uncertain terms.

As this unfolds I think Bush will have some major problems if Iraq complies with his, Blix's, latest directive and Bush decides to send the troops in anyway.

[adios]

It seems to me that there is a lot of blind opposition to military action without considering the issues involved. I hate to make the dividing line anti-war vs. pro-war because god damnit I'm anti war too but admittedly not a pacifist. BTW I believe the left has very successfully framed this crises an "anti-war vs. pro-war" crises. This characterization may be accurate at a later date but it certainly isn't now. I just don't see coherent policy alternatives from the left. The laundry list I gave actually has some relevant issues but throwing out a bunch of negative propaganda seems rather shrill and empty to me.